BUILDING THE CANADIAN "JUST SOCIETY"

Mr. Eric Butler reports from Canada

The Trudeau Government's "Just Society" provides some fascinating examples of the Welfare State in action. In an effort to stimulate the economy before an election, which many feel, could come this year, the Government is resorting to some techniques, which sound like something out of the Mad Hatter's tea party. It appears that anyone who can come up with a new project is entitled to large-scale financial assistance. So there are funds being handed out to hippie cults, to a type of black magic group and to similar "projects". One man has been engaged at a large salary to conduct a project on how to adjust to poverty!

The Trudeau Government is also expanding enormously the cost of Government by insisting, quite unconstitutionally according to authorities I have consulted on the subject, that Canada is a bilingual nation and that all Canadians must have French imposed upon them. This policy is generating tremendous feeling in Western Canada, where English-speaking Canadians resent, for example, being presented with official documents in both English and French.
The Canadian Broadcasting Commission has spent large sums of money in Vancouver to produce a French-speaking service for a handful of French-speaking Canadians.

When Mr. Phil Lynch was Minister for Immigration he made a statement to the effect that Australia could learn from Canada's immigration policies, which were allegedly working satisfactorily. This is not how a large number of Canadians see the growing influx of non-Europeans, with the development of minority groups which are the perfect material for the skilled agitator. I will report further on this at a later date.

Like all non-Communist nations, Canada is vigorously engaged in fulfilling Lenin's famous prediction that the time would come when the "capitalist" nations would, unable to solve their internal finance economic problems, be competing with one another to send their surplus production to the Communists. Lenin also predicted that the "capitalists" would also provide the Communists with the necessary credits. Canadian Trade Minister Pepin has just signed a trade agreement with the Ambassador of Jugoslavia, for the export of 110 Canadian diesel-electric locomotives to Communist Tito. These are worth $34.5 million, and $30.5 million of this has been "loaned" to Jugoslavia through the Export Development Corporation.

The total Canadian loans to Jugoslavia, through the Export Development Corporation, now stands at $57 million. The reality of the situation is that the Communists in Jugoslavia have obtained a large quantity of Canadian production for nothing. The credits for the loans to Jugoslavia are created in the normal manner, but never leave Canada. Only the locomotive engines and other production leaves. This technique of financing exports contributes to continuing inflation, which Mr. Trudeau has not been able to stop in spite of the restrictive policies of his top "expert", Mr. Louis Rasminsky of the Bank of Canada.

As Mr. Trudeau, quite naturally, has decided that he wishes to continue building the Canadian "Just Society", he is convinced that large-scale unemployment is much more dangerous politically than another burst of inflation, so there is easing of the credit restrictions. President Nixon is pursuing the same tactics South of the Border, while Mr. McMahon in Australia is also attempting to play the same dangerous game.

ECONOMY NOT YET RESPONDING TO MR. SNEDDON'S "TONIC"

"Unemployment worsened in February, according to Department of Labor figures released yesterday." - The Age, Melbourne, March 14th.

As was brought out in this article, Government optimism in January about unemployment trends has proved incorrect. There is no doubt that the Australian economy has taken a jolt, and that most manufacturers and businessmen have adopted a most cautious approach in their day-to-day dealings. It is no use politicians croaking about a "lack of confidence" - it would be a wonder if the confidence of the business community were not sapped as a result of the harsh measures which the Government at Canberra had applied to 'curb' so-called demand-inflation which did not exist.

The misery and inconvenience, which the inevitable results have brought to a great number of ordinary Australians, can be laid right at the door of the Government, and especially at the door of Mr. Snedden, the Treasurer. Mr. Snedden must be held personally responsible for the current economic situation - he wanted the No. 2 position in the Government hierarchy, and he must not be allowed to slide out from under by passing the buck. We have little doubt that Mr. Snedden did not draft the last Budget, and without setting out to stigmatise the man unduly we have to assert that he wouldn't know how to draft a Budget. We know that Mr. Snedden is a pleasant gentleman, but this is not the point; he took on the job AND the responsibility - he can't now 'duck' this responsibility.

So Mr. Snedden, and the Government will suffer electorally because of the disastrous effects of the 1971 Budget, which we'll wager was drafted by at least some economists who have gained their professional qualifications at the Keynesian-influenced. Socialist-oriented, London School of Economics. Are we right Mr. Snedden? May we remind these gentlemen, if any are happening to be reading these lines (as we are confident is the case) that Professor A. A. Walters, Cassel Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, said in Melbourne last year (at an address at Monash University) that Keynesian economics have failed, and that the 'standard' text-books are of no use.

These same 'experts' to whom Mr. Snedden may well be indebted for the defeat of the Government, and even his own personal defeat are the most vocal in their denunciations and condemnations of contributions from outside bodies. We refer in particular to A Programme for Reversing Inflation, published by the Institute of Economic Democracy, a Division of the Australian League of Rights. It is available from Box 1052J, G.P.O., Melbourne, Vic. 3001. Price 31 cents, post-free.

B.B.C. AGAIN DISTORTS AUSTRALIAN IMAGE

"Kangaroo Valley, and all points Antipodean in Britain are up in arms against the B.B.C., the Australian producer, Tom Haydon, and his British Empire film on the Australian character." - The Australian, March 11th.

We have little doubt what is behind all these distorted T.V. 'documentaries' on the British Empire: but we are such suspicious people; so say our critics. The 'angle' is expressed in two words; two words which we have repeated before - 'Common Market'. At least 75% of Britons are still opposed to Britain's entry in the Common Market. "They are not really interested in rapturous accounts of magnificent 'economic opportunities' for Britain; the shimmering wonder stories of a new, revitalised Britain 'leading' a strong integrated Europe, leave them cold. The plain John Bull 'feels' that he shouldn't ditch his kinsmen in the Commonwealth, even though he is unable to express himself in precise language. And instincts are so often more in tune with reality than reams of fruity, intellectual, pseudologic.

Our own Professor A. G. L. Shaw of Monash University, who is visiting Britain, writes that this B.B.C. T.V. series proceeds from bad to worse with the portrayal of incredible absurdities concerning Australia, Canada and Africa. We were treated on Sunday 12th on A.B.C. T.V. to see a B.B.C. T.V. 'brainwash-job' on the necessity of Britain joining the E.E.C. A senior ex-official of the Diplomatic Service, Sir Con O'Neill, after lamenting the decline of poor old Britain as a has-been, then comforts his viewers that there is one measure which can restore Britain to her rightful place and that is to 'get into that building there'. He was standing in front of the headquarters of the E.E.C. in Brussels. It was a pretty poor effort, and quite ludicrous to those who know the real story; but it is the type of brain-washing that is being churned out, at the tax-payers' expense to soften-up British public opinion.

The present series of B.B.C. 'documentaries' which are smearing the Commonwealth are part and parcel of this monstrous distortion and suppression of plain facts. Did anyone say something about democracy?! A ruthless power-movement is behind this drive to pull and push a bewildered Britain into Europe: the wishes and sentiments of the majority of Britons are the very last thing, which will be allowed to get in the way. And Mr. Heath, and Sir Alec Douglas-Home and their like, are writhing to prostrate themselves in obeisance before the feet of their unseen Masters.

SEX EDUCATION BURSTS OUT OF ITS COCOON

"A sex education course for 12 year old boys and girls is being threatened by a widespread campaign organized by two Melbourne grandmothers." The Age, Melbourne, March 9th.

The League has known for some considerable time that this Sex Education project has been 'on the go', and has been alarmed at the rather sneaky way in which it is being advanced into the education systems of this country. It has been introduced into other countries, notably Sweden and the U.S.A. (neither them models of a healthy society) and the observable results have not been promising. We have very strong reservations concerning the concept of the teaching of Sex Education in schools.

Predictably, the Melbourne Age, in an editorial (10/3/72) praises the concept. The 'line' is not convincing: sex education may be better carried out in the home, but it isn't done at all, or done badly; parents are graduates of the 'bird and bee' school! The Age reported that the director of the authorised 'research' body Australian Science Education Project, Mr. H.O. Howard stated that he and his staff are spending a great deal of time in dealing with enquiries from mothers' clubs, members of whom are worried about the course. Mr. Howard is quoted as saying that in each case these ladies go away reassured. We personally know of several ladies who have been anything but reassured; and frankly, we are not happy about this body at all.

We have before us a statement by the Federal Minister for Education and Science, Mr. Malcolm Fraser who, to his credit, has something to say about this course-called, Males and Females. Mr. Fraser says: "In the case of the 'Males and Females' unit, the initial trials have been completed in a small number of Government, Catholic, and other non-Government schools. The material on which these trials were based has recently come to my attention, and, without wishing to adopt a firm view as to the suitability of all the material, some of it does give me cause for concern.

We have been prompted to examine the opinions of many distinguished American authorities on this subject, scholars are considerably more qualified to express an opinion than Leader writers of the Age. Dr. Gordon V. Drake, former member of the faculties of the University of Denver and Wisconsin State University, with over twenty years experience, and holding a doctorate in higher education and administration, says in his booklet, "Is the Schoolhouse the Proper Place to Teach Raw Sex?":- Kindergartners are not physically, emotionally, nor intellectually mature enough to learn 'responsible parenthood'. The three to five year old is not interested in accepting such an awesome responsibility. He may want to know - in general terms of accuracy - where babies come from, but does not require a detailed account of the sex act which he would naturally relate to his mother and father. (Sex instruction courses are given to 3 to 6 year olds in some American schools.)

Prominent American psychiatrist. Dr. Melvin Anchell, has observed:- "The one thing sex education is supposed to do for us - that is, help our children become more mature adults - it actually destroys. It does it by interfering with the normal instinctual growth of the child. It catapults the child into advanced sexual information: it perverts the child".

Dr. Rhoda L. Lorand, a foremost New York child analyst; author of "Love, Sex, and the Teenager", has written on this subject:- "How far is this folly going to go? They're (the sex-instruction in-schools advocates) repeating the same mistake the Freudians made years ago. ... It will overwhelm, embarrass, upset and excite the children, forcing them to turn to, then repress all of these troublesome feelings and this may lead to learning difficulties. It will very likely lead to sexual difficulties in later life..... To violate a child's age needs and need for peace and privacy by forcing him to consider this inappropriate material in the presence of the opposite sex is appallingly mistaken...." We could go on!

We don't think that the two 'Melbourne grandmothers' are to be disparaged: we think that they are genuine, concerned Christian women who are doing a real service. We urge all readers to ask some very searching questions about this Sex Education 'project' which is being "palmed off" onto Australian parents and children by unrevealed 'experts'.

ON TARGET BULLETIN

The Economic System

The economic system is not an instrument of government, something to be used to control the individual. The persistent claim that the economic system exists to provide "full employment" is a perversion of means into ends. The scientist and the engineer have been striving for thousands of years to lift the "curse of Adam" from the back of man to that of the solar powered machines. What is meant by "full employment" is that the individual should work as directed. The Socialists of all types openly advocate this policy, which runs contrary to man's persistent efforts over the centuries to reduce the amount of time necessary to provide himself with the basic requirements of life so that he could develop himself through other forms of voluntary activity.

Experience has demonstrated that the only economic system, which can really serve the individual, is one where free enterprise competes to provide the individual with what he wants. The individual consumer exercises control through his money "vote." The "money vote" is the most flexible form of voting ever devised by man. It permits the individual consumer to "vote" for the goods and services he requires, to penalise those producers whose goods and services he does not want. A genuine economic democracy, that is, consumer control of production, is only possible when, (a) the individual has adequate "money votes" to obtain from his economic associations the results, he wants, and (b) there is genuine competition.